Re: ifTable Extensions
Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com> Sat, 05 April 1997 03:16 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa04361; 4 Apr 97 22:16 EST
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24529; 4 Apr 97 22:16 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id WAA15143 for snmpv2-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 22:03:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199704050308.TAA11514@foxhound.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: ifTable Extensions
To: David Perkins <dperkins@scruznet.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 19:08:05 -0800
Cc: snmpv2@tis.com, sdurham@cisco.com, vvolpe@smtp.microcom.com
In-Reply-To: <Chameleon.970404151220.dperkins@dperkins4.sj.scruznet.com> from "David Perkins" at Apr 4, 97 02:46:33 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-snmpv2@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
On the contrary, Sandra's response was entirely accurate, and I think the explanation and example in RFC 1904 (pages 9-11) is quite sufficient. Keith. > The response from Sandra, was mostly correct, but she missed an important > distinction about compliances. That is, strictly speaking, an agent implementation > either meets (or does not meet) a requirements specification. A MODULE-COMPLIANCE > is a requirements specification. There is no such thing as being > "conformant to a MIB module". An implementation can only be compared to > a requirements specification. All this conformance and compliance terminology > is explained in the book "Understanding SNMP MIBs" by perkins and mcginnis, > with ISBN 0-13-437708-7. See pages 130-136 for a discussion and examples > of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE construct. > > The OBJECT-GROUP and NOTIFICATION-GROUP constructs are used to group together > related objects and events. Instances of these are specified in a > MODULE-COMPLIANCE to indicate requirements and are specified in a > AGENT-CAPABILITIES to show implementation. In Understanding SNMP MIBs, > the groups are described on pages 127-130, and the agent capabilities > is described on pages 136-141. Two extensive examples of their usage > are shown on pages 233-240, 364-366, and 382-384. > > On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:52:27 -0800 (PST) Sandra Durham wrote: > >> > >> Can anyone shed some light on the use of the ifGeneralGroup and ifPacketGroup > >> They seem to be just repackaged ifTable objects. They are not defined as > >> tables so it does not look like they can be retrieved from an agent. > > > >ifGeneralGroup, and ifPacketGroup are part of the conformance statements > >for the IF-MIB. If you are unfamiliar with conformance issues, > >you should probably go read rfc1904. > > > >the basic deal here is that an agent implementation can be considered > >conformant to the IF-MIB if it implements the appropriate > >groups for a given interface media type. And thus the ifTable will > >have sparse rows. (as in if media type A requires only the > >ifGeneralGroup, then the associated ifTable rows will return > >noSuchInstance for things like ifInUcastPkts, etc). > > > >Sandra Durham > > > Regards, > /dperkins@scruznet.com, David T. Perkins > Date: 04/04/97, Time: 14:46:33 > > >
- ifTable Extensions Victor Volpe
- Re: ifTable Extensions Sandra Durham
- Re: ifTable Extensions David Perkins
- Re: ifTable Extensions Keith McCloghrie